TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 92
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....19 and the lorry was directed to be released on production of bank guarantee. Following the directions of this Court, the notice was adjudicated and Ext.P3 order was issued on 16.8.2019, imposing a penalty of Rs.5,24,017/- on the petitioner along with a demand for IGST for the same amount making a total demand of Rs.10,48,034/- on the petitioner. The petitioner preferred Ext.P4 appeal against Ext.P3 order under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act/ State Goods and Services Tax Act (hereinafter also referred to as the 'CGST/SGST Acts' or as 'GST Law'). The appeal filed by the petitioner as Ext.P4 has been returned, stating that the appeal cannot be entertained as the petitioner had not paid any admitted tax, and there is no pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax. It was also pointed out that stamp paper equivalent to 1% of the disputed tax is not remitted towards the legal benefit fund. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that there was no warrant for imposing any penalty on the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that there is no suppression or evasion of tax. It is submitted that the e-way bill was valid up t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Supreme Court, through order in SLP(C) No.21132/2021 had dismissed the Special Leave Petition finding that the High Court had acted correctly and even observed as under:- "The analysis and reasoning of the High Court commend to us, when it is noticed that the High Court has meticulously examined and correctly found that no fault or intent to evade tax could have been inferred against the writ petitioner. However, as commented at the outset, the amount of costs as awarded by the High Court in this matter is rather on the lower side. Considering the overall conduct of the petitioner No.2 and the corresponding harassment faced by the writ petitioner we find it rather necessary to enhance the amount of costs." 3. The learned senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents would contend that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the detention is within 20 minutes of the expiry of the e-way bill is absolutely incorrect. She states that the detention was at 12.20 p.m and the indication in Ext.P1 that the detention was on 12.20 a.m. is a genuine mistake. She relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Ranjilal Damodaran v. Asst. State Tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quential recovery of tax due to the State, are seen as acts that subserve larger public interest, and hence the restrictions to the exercise of the constitutional freedoms are seen as reasonable. 6. It follows, as a corollary to the above position, that unless there is a possibility of tax evasion, a detention of goods and vehicles cannot be justified, and that an authority vested with the powers of detention under a taxing statute has to bear in mind that the provisions authorizing detention have to be strictly construed for what is at stake is a constitutional right, fundamental or otherwise, of a citizen. There is also the aspect of fairness in the levy and collection of taxes that must inform the authorities entrusted with the said task, for fair implementation of the law has been recognised as an essential attribute of the rule of law in a republic such as ours." (Emphasis is supplied) The Learned Judge also held as follows:- "It has to be borne in mind that Section 129 forms part of the machinery provisions under the Act to check evasion of tax and a detention can be justified only if there is a contravention of the provisions of the Act in relation to transportation o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an invoice or any other specified document and not an e-way bill, proceedings under section 129 of the CGST Act may be initiated. "5. Further, in case a consignment of goods is accompanied with an invoice or any other specified document and also an e-way bill, proceedings under section 129 of the CGST Act may not be initiated, inter alia, in the following situations: a) Spelling mistakes in the name of the consignor or the consignee but the GSTIN, wherever applicable, is correct; b) Error in the pin code but the address of the consignor and the consignee mentioned is correct, subject to the condition that the error in the PIN code should not have the effect of increasing the validity period of the e-way bill; c) Error in the address of the consignee to the extent that the locality and other details of the consignee are correct; d) Error in one or two digits of the document number mentioned in the e-way bill; e) Error in 4 or 6 digit level of HSN where the first 2 digits of HSN are correct and the rate of tax mentioned is correct; f) Error in one or two digits/characters of the vehicle number. 6. In case of the above situations, penalty to the tune of Rs.500/- each u....